GLOBAL POLITICS AND DIPLOMACY
What is Diplomatic Statecraft?’, in: N. KRALEV (ed.), Diplomatic Statecraft, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-3
— Just some introduction about his work and life
— Diplomatic tradecraft defined as the set of skills, duties and responsibilities required in the daily
work of modern diplomacy
The Meaning of Diplomacy
Abstract
— This article draws on interviews with 198 state ambassadors and applies an interpretivist lens to
provide a more nuanced conceptualization of diplomacy. In doing so, we seek to project a closer fit
between scholarly definitions of the term and how diplomacy is understood by practitioners
— We contribute to the literature by proposing a more refined understanding of the term, presented
here as five distinct (though not mutually exclusive) ‘meanings’ of diplomacy: (1) The actors taking
part in modern diplomacy; (2) the objectives of diplomacy; (3) the mechanisms of diplomacy; (4)
diplomacy as a skill; and (5) diplomacy as a profession. We find that drawing on the full range of
the diplomatic experience is particularly important given the growing challenges to negotiation as
the primary agency of diplomacy
— None of the mainstream approaches to IR – realism, liberalism, and Marxism – consider
diplomacy a central entity of international relations. The IR field has tended to focus on the macro-
level of conflict and cooperation at the systemic level, rather than the micro-level of the social
practice of diplomats
— State-centric definitions perceive diplomacy as the operational side of foreign affairs, which has
the mandate to implement governments’ foreign policies. Morgenthau, for example, whilst
addressing diplomacy systematically, does not include diplomacy in his six principles of realism,
but rather views it as a means (alternative to war) for dealing with the consequences of state actors’
pursuit of power. Similarly, liberals view diplomacy as a tool to affect the nature of the interaction
between states and the international system, rather than a core matter of international relations
which determines the character and interests of the constituent actors in the system. Finally, Marxist
variants do not assign much significance to diplomacy in a political space defined by the
accumulation and reproduction of capital
Page 1 of 82
,— the English School has presented a more embedded view of diplomacy in the social and political
space, whereby beyond the rationalist and power-related conceptualization of diplomacy, there
exists an international society which is autonomous of state actors and their material interaction.
— Given this state of confusion, we adopt an interpretivist approach to propose a new heuristic of
diplomacy, or, more accurately, “meanings of diplomacy.” As we shall discuss in detail later on, this
heuristic is methodologically novel in that it draws on interviews with 198 ambassadors from four
countries. By asking the practitioners of diplomacy to define their field, we address Melissen’s call
that “A field that aims to act as a two-way conduit between scholars and practitioners benefits from
reflection on the practitioners’ added value for its academic work” (2011: 724).
Defining Diplomacy
— Diplomacy is both “a category of practice and a category of analysis” (Pouliot & Cornut 2015:
299), meaning that contemporary definitions of diplomacy are broad and differentiated along
epistemological and methodological boundaries. According to Der Derian, the pursuit of a single,
all-encompassing definition of diplomacy is futile given the nature of international relations
— De Magalhaes (1998) sees diplomacy as commonly defined through four prisms: foreign policy,
an instrument of foreign policy, international negotiations, and the activity of diplomats. Sharp
(2003) defines diplomacy as a synonym for statecraft, foreign policy, and international relations, as
well as the making of foreign policy by practitioners. Pigman (2013) offers a basic distinction
between a positivist state-focused approach and a post-positivist approach which focuses more on
the core functions of diplomacy, while Murray (2008) presents a more nuanced typology of three
schools of diplomatic thought: traditional state-based approaches; nascent approaches which focus
on the role of new, non-state actors; and innovative approaches which highlight the coexistence and
even cooperation between traditional and ‘new’ forms of diplomacy
— the rigid conceptual focus on formal structures of diplomacy has not only hampered efforts to
theorize the field, but it can also be blamed for a certain failure to “deliver” policy results in a
complex world by the imposition of such an autonomous and exclusive attitude to world affairs and
other practitioners of diplomacy
— Here diplomacy is viewed as a mechanism designed to establish and maintain networks and
relationships among traditional and new actors in the pursuit of shared interdependent goals
(Diamond & MacDonald 1996). According to Der Derian (2009: 10), this approach offers “a
general working definition of diplomacy as mediation between estranged individuals, groups or
entities.”
Negotiation as a Process and Role for Diplomats
Page 2 of 82
,— Adopting Wendt’s approach to the structure-agency problem in international relations is
particularly apt when studying diplomacy as a process of negotiation and diplomats as negotiators.
As Glenn and Susskind (2010) note, negotiation as a process of diplomacy is not merely an act of
communication, but a more substantive method of interaction, which informs and changes not only
how diplomats view their interlocutors but also how they view their own role and position within
the international system
— As the accepted mechanism of interstate negotiation, diplomacy as a process is essential to the
normal conduct of the nation-state system, yet the rapid growth in the number of “diplomatically
active” non-state actors, technical innovations (especially social media), and public awareness of
and sensitivity to “glocal” issues (such as climate change, pandemics, and migration) has
significantly altered the environment in which diplomats operate, and accordingly their need to
adapt to it
— Given this article’s focus on how diplomats define diplomacy and their role as diplomatic actors,
it is important to conceptualize the agency of diplomatic activity. While the majority of the
literature tends to focus on diplomacy as primarily inter-state negotiation, the role of diplomats as
agents of negotiation has been generally neglected.
Research Design and Methods
— According to Bevir and Rhodes (2012: 201), “Actions and practices are intrinsically meaningful:
they embody the beliefs of the actors and cannot properly be discussed without reference to their
beliefs.”
— Key to our research design is the assumption that actors of diplomacy are diplomats rather than
states, and that their identities and beliefs are independent of static power relations; they are socially
constructed through their own interaction and their interpretation of their environment (Farrell
2002). In doing so, we not only aim to offer a more nuanced conceptualization of diplomacy, but we
also showcase “the diversity and contingency of meaningful activity”
— The participants were first asked how they defined diplomacy and were explicitly requested to
do so based on their own experiences. The size of the sample was determined by the need to reach
data saturation around the main research topics. Charmaz and Belgrave (2012) define saturation as a
state when new data no longer adds new information that can enhance the understanding of the core
categories.
Findings
— To what extent do these ambassadors’ views reflect on the rapid changes in the nature, purpose,
and conduct of modern diplomacy? While a majority of ambassadors viewed diplomacy as
Page 3 of 82
, primarily a state-run activity for the purpose of enhancing national foreign policy priorities, a large
proportion also acknowledged the new challenges faced by diplomats in the area of international
negotiation. Drawing on research by Stein (2011), Adesina (2016), and Stanzel (2019) we suggest
that the increase in the plurality of “diplomatically active” actors and technical innovations
(especially social media), and growing public awareness of and sensitivity to foreign policy issues,
has had noticeable impact on the conduct of international negotiations
— Accordingly, based on our research design and viewing the practice of diplomacy through an
interpretivist lens, we propose that the term can be better understood in relation to five parameters:
(1) the identity of the actors, (2) their goals, (3) their mechanisms of interaction, (4) the profession,
and (5) the skill sets of diplomacy. Each of the five categories is understood by interviewees to
represent the following constructs of diplomacy:
Page 4 of 82
What is Diplomatic Statecraft?’, in: N. KRALEV (ed.), Diplomatic Statecraft, Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-3
— Just some introduction about his work and life
— Diplomatic tradecraft defined as the set of skills, duties and responsibilities required in the daily
work of modern diplomacy
The Meaning of Diplomacy
Abstract
— This article draws on interviews with 198 state ambassadors and applies an interpretivist lens to
provide a more nuanced conceptualization of diplomacy. In doing so, we seek to project a closer fit
between scholarly definitions of the term and how diplomacy is understood by practitioners
— We contribute to the literature by proposing a more refined understanding of the term, presented
here as five distinct (though not mutually exclusive) ‘meanings’ of diplomacy: (1) The actors taking
part in modern diplomacy; (2) the objectives of diplomacy; (3) the mechanisms of diplomacy; (4)
diplomacy as a skill; and (5) diplomacy as a profession. We find that drawing on the full range of
the diplomatic experience is particularly important given the growing challenges to negotiation as
the primary agency of diplomacy
— None of the mainstream approaches to IR – realism, liberalism, and Marxism – consider
diplomacy a central entity of international relations. The IR field has tended to focus on the macro-
level of conflict and cooperation at the systemic level, rather than the micro-level of the social
practice of diplomats
— State-centric definitions perceive diplomacy as the operational side of foreign affairs, which has
the mandate to implement governments’ foreign policies. Morgenthau, for example, whilst
addressing diplomacy systematically, does not include diplomacy in his six principles of realism,
but rather views it as a means (alternative to war) for dealing with the consequences of state actors’
pursuit of power. Similarly, liberals view diplomacy as a tool to affect the nature of the interaction
between states and the international system, rather than a core matter of international relations
which determines the character and interests of the constituent actors in the system. Finally, Marxist
variants do not assign much significance to diplomacy in a political space defined by the
accumulation and reproduction of capital
Page 1 of 82
,— the English School has presented a more embedded view of diplomacy in the social and political
space, whereby beyond the rationalist and power-related conceptualization of diplomacy, there
exists an international society which is autonomous of state actors and their material interaction.
— Given this state of confusion, we adopt an interpretivist approach to propose a new heuristic of
diplomacy, or, more accurately, “meanings of diplomacy.” As we shall discuss in detail later on, this
heuristic is methodologically novel in that it draws on interviews with 198 ambassadors from four
countries. By asking the practitioners of diplomacy to define their field, we address Melissen’s call
that “A field that aims to act as a two-way conduit between scholars and practitioners benefits from
reflection on the practitioners’ added value for its academic work” (2011: 724).
Defining Diplomacy
— Diplomacy is both “a category of practice and a category of analysis” (Pouliot & Cornut 2015:
299), meaning that contemporary definitions of diplomacy are broad and differentiated along
epistemological and methodological boundaries. According to Der Derian, the pursuit of a single,
all-encompassing definition of diplomacy is futile given the nature of international relations
— De Magalhaes (1998) sees diplomacy as commonly defined through four prisms: foreign policy,
an instrument of foreign policy, international negotiations, and the activity of diplomats. Sharp
(2003) defines diplomacy as a synonym for statecraft, foreign policy, and international relations, as
well as the making of foreign policy by practitioners. Pigman (2013) offers a basic distinction
between a positivist state-focused approach and a post-positivist approach which focuses more on
the core functions of diplomacy, while Murray (2008) presents a more nuanced typology of three
schools of diplomatic thought: traditional state-based approaches; nascent approaches which focus
on the role of new, non-state actors; and innovative approaches which highlight the coexistence and
even cooperation between traditional and ‘new’ forms of diplomacy
— the rigid conceptual focus on formal structures of diplomacy has not only hampered efforts to
theorize the field, but it can also be blamed for a certain failure to “deliver” policy results in a
complex world by the imposition of such an autonomous and exclusive attitude to world affairs and
other practitioners of diplomacy
— Here diplomacy is viewed as a mechanism designed to establish and maintain networks and
relationships among traditional and new actors in the pursuit of shared interdependent goals
(Diamond & MacDonald 1996). According to Der Derian (2009: 10), this approach offers “a
general working definition of diplomacy as mediation between estranged individuals, groups or
entities.”
Negotiation as a Process and Role for Diplomats
Page 2 of 82
,— Adopting Wendt’s approach to the structure-agency problem in international relations is
particularly apt when studying diplomacy as a process of negotiation and diplomats as negotiators.
As Glenn and Susskind (2010) note, negotiation as a process of diplomacy is not merely an act of
communication, but a more substantive method of interaction, which informs and changes not only
how diplomats view their interlocutors but also how they view their own role and position within
the international system
— As the accepted mechanism of interstate negotiation, diplomacy as a process is essential to the
normal conduct of the nation-state system, yet the rapid growth in the number of “diplomatically
active” non-state actors, technical innovations (especially social media), and public awareness of
and sensitivity to “glocal” issues (such as climate change, pandemics, and migration) has
significantly altered the environment in which diplomats operate, and accordingly their need to
adapt to it
— Given this article’s focus on how diplomats define diplomacy and their role as diplomatic actors,
it is important to conceptualize the agency of diplomatic activity. While the majority of the
literature tends to focus on diplomacy as primarily inter-state negotiation, the role of diplomats as
agents of negotiation has been generally neglected.
Research Design and Methods
— According to Bevir and Rhodes (2012: 201), “Actions and practices are intrinsically meaningful:
they embody the beliefs of the actors and cannot properly be discussed without reference to their
beliefs.”
— Key to our research design is the assumption that actors of diplomacy are diplomats rather than
states, and that their identities and beliefs are independent of static power relations; they are socially
constructed through their own interaction and their interpretation of their environment (Farrell
2002). In doing so, we not only aim to offer a more nuanced conceptualization of diplomacy, but we
also showcase “the diversity and contingency of meaningful activity”
— The participants were first asked how they defined diplomacy and were explicitly requested to
do so based on their own experiences. The size of the sample was determined by the need to reach
data saturation around the main research topics. Charmaz and Belgrave (2012) define saturation as a
state when new data no longer adds new information that can enhance the understanding of the core
categories.
Findings
— To what extent do these ambassadors’ views reflect on the rapid changes in the nature, purpose,
and conduct of modern diplomacy? While a majority of ambassadors viewed diplomacy as
Page 3 of 82
, primarily a state-run activity for the purpose of enhancing national foreign policy priorities, a large
proportion also acknowledged the new challenges faced by diplomats in the area of international
negotiation. Drawing on research by Stein (2011), Adesina (2016), and Stanzel (2019) we suggest
that the increase in the plurality of “diplomatically active” actors and technical innovations
(especially social media), and growing public awareness of and sensitivity to foreign policy issues,
has had noticeable impact on the conduct of international negotiations
— Accordingly, based on our research design and viewing the practice of diplomacy through an
interpretivist lens, we propose that the term can be better understood in relation to five parameters:
(1) the identity of the actors, (2) their goals, (3) their mechanisms of interaction, (4) the profession,
and (5) the skill sets of diplomacy. Each of the five categories is understood by interviewees to
represent the following constructs of diplomacy:
Page 4 of 82
